Key result
Reduced-dose VTE prophylaxis showed no significant difference in clinically relevant VTEs compared to standard-dose in underweight, critically ill patients (4.4% vs 5.6%, P=1.00).
Why the study?
Does reduced-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis prevent VTE with lower bleeding risk compared to standard-dose in underweight critically ill patients?
Cohort (n=295)
Does reduced-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis prevent VTE with lower bleeding risk compared to standard-dose in underweight critically ill patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.4% vs 5.6%
p-value: p=1.00
In underweight critically ill patients, reduced-dose VTE prophylaxis showed similar VTE rates and numerically lower bleeding compared to standard-dose, highlighting the need for further studies on optimal dosing.
Should not yet change VTE prophylaxis dosing in underweight critically ill patients; hypothesis-generating for reduced-dose regimens.
BACKGROUND: The optimal regimen for pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in underweight, critically ill patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe prescribing patterns for VTE prophylaxis in underweight (≤50 kg or body mass index ≤18.5 kg/m(2)), critically ill patients and identify the prevalence of VTE and bleeding. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study that included patients who received standard- or reduced-dose VTE prophylaxis for ≥48 hours. RESULTS: A total of 295 individuals were included in the study. The majority of underweight patients in this study (79.7%) received unfractionated heparin, 5000 units 3 times daily. No statistically significant difference in the prevalence of clinically relevant VTEs between the reduced- and standard-dose groups was observed (4.4% vs 5.6%, P = 1.00), but a higher proportion of bleeding events was identified within the standard-dose group (6.7% vs 11.2%, P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Empirical dose reductions of VTE prophylaxis are infrequently used in underweight, critically ill patients. Further studies need to be conducted that assess the safety and efficacy of reduced-dose VTE prophylactic regimens in this population to determine if acceptable efficacy can be achieved, with lower risks of bleeding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carter et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Underweight, critically ill requiring VTE prophylaxis (n=295). Reduced-dose VTE prophylaxis vs. Standard-dose VTE prophylaxis was evaluated on Clinically relevant VTEs (p=1.00). Reduced-dose VTE prophylaxis showed no significant difference in clinically relevant VTEs compared to standard-dose in underweight, critically ill patients (4.4% vs 5.6%, P=1.00).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: